“Just 10 days ago, I wrote about SJR 45, a Tea Party-infused measure (part interposition, part nullification, part secessionism) that would purport to give Missouri the power to disregard federal law — and federal-court rulings interpreting and enforcing that law. SJR 45 evidently hasn’t yet made it out of the state senate yet, and the entire legislature would have to approve the proposed constitutional amendment before Missourians could vote on it. But even if all of that were to happen the law would have zero chance — none — of passing constitutional muster upon judicial review. Like people, states don’t get to pick and choose which federal laws they want to obey.”

I was really hoping that at this point in the article, this leading analyst would offer an explanation of why the only ‘constitutional’ behavior a state can assume is to cower in fear under the spectre of an out-of-control Federal government. He did not.

UPDATE: The Arizona Senate passed HCR2004 16-14 the second time around 0n April 30.

HCR:2004 unfortunately failed to pass in the Senate on the third reading of April 24, 2012, with a vote of 14 “Ayes”, 14 “Nays”, and two who did not vote (Steve Gallardo and Frank Antenori). Supporters thought the bill was dead.

However, Senator Yarbrough (who voted no) put forth a motion to reconsider, and the motion carried. To view the vote detail, and to see the breakdown of who voted for or against HCR: 2004, please Click Here.

As Joel Poindexter wrote in the previous Tenth Amendment Center story Arizona Moves to Regain Sovereignty, “The proposed amendment, HCR:2004, is intended to reassert Arizona’s sovereignty as a state, and regain control over much of the state’s lands and resources. According to Section C. of the proposal: “The State of Arizona declares its sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries….” The authors made exceptions for existing military posts, Indian reservations, and federal property, pursuant to the US constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.”

Share this:

Michael Boldin and Lesley Swann cover some big news in the Tenther Movement. Arizona is on the verge of becoming the 2nd state to reject NDAA, and the Missouri House just approved Constitutional Tender by a wide margin.

They also talk about a few upcoming events – in MA and CA over the coming week.

The first guest of the show, Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. She’s the prime sponsor of SB1182 there, the anti-NDAA bill which just passed the house and senate – and is awaiting a signature from Jan Brewer.

“This state and any agency of this state shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law 112-81, against any citizen of the United States.”

When Senator Allen was asked what motivated her, she responded, “It was to try to protect the due process protections in our Constitution for the citizens of the United States.”

Delegate Bob Marshall is urging legislative leaders across the United States to enact bills similar to the new Virginia law refusing cooperation with federal authorities in arresting and indefinitely detaining American citizens on the slightest suspicion of aiding terrorists.

“April 18, 2012, was a banner day for liberty and federalism in the Old Dominion!” Marshall wrote in a letter to the presiding officers of all the state legislatures.

That was the day the Virginia General Assembly passed Marshall’s House Bill 1160 barring Virginia government agencies and public employees from assisting federal authorities from seizing and holding American citizens indefinitely without probable cause, the right to know the charges against them, and procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. HB 1160 has been signed into law by Gov. Bob McDonnell and goes into effect on July 1.

U.S. military and federal law enforcement agencies are authorized to make such arrests under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 31.

Share this:

“Time to Take Down TSA” was the Heritage Foundation’s headline. The author, James Carafano, was commenting on a recent study he coauthored for the D.C.-based think-tank. But in typical establishment, inside-the-beltway fashion, his prescription for the Transportation Security Administration would take down nothing. Nor would it restore to the states a constitutional level of federal aviation oversight – which is zero.

Just like politicians who throw buzzwords like “reform” around to pander to constituents, these groups who advocate “rethinking” the TSA have nothing profound to contribute to the discourse. Under such a plan, which involved “redefining” the TSA’s role, no fundamental change would take place in transportation security.

What Carafano and the Heritage Foundation call for is changing the role of the TSA from providing “security” directly, to “making aviation security policy and regulations.” He goes on to suggest that: “Screening responsibility would devolve to the airports, whose security operations would be supervised by a federal security director.”

This is really no different than the various federal agencies charged with waging the war on drugs shifting their focus from direct action to merely writing policy and regulations. In the same way that airports would be responsible to implement the government’s central plan, drug enforcement would be turned over to semi-private agencies which, under the direct supervision of the feds, would continue the very same assault on our civil liberties. At least the current system allows the tyranny and incompetence to be directly associated with government, whereas a more “privatized” system would tend to shift the blame away from the feds and onto others.

Take seven minutes and listen to an excerpt from the debate on the sound money bill in Missouri. Rep. Paul Curtman explains the issue patiently to a fellow Representative who has a great deal to learn about economics and monetary policy.

Share this:

Resistance to unjust war was the topic of an exciting speech given byCome Home America’sDarren Wolfe at Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31, 2012. He spoke about a number of compelling topics including how the states can resist the federal government’s war making by withholding the National Guard and the Tenth Amendment Center’s Defend the Guard…

Share this:

Very few people know that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 only the last of nearly 20 other conventions in which American colonies, and later states, met to deliberate on specified problems.

In these gatherings, states met as semi-sovereigns; these were essentially diplomatic meetings. The rule for decision was “one state, one vote.”

Those conventions were the model for the “convention for proposing amendments” in Article V of the Constitution.

I have just finished a paper that appears to be the first historical account of the entire series of inter-colonial and interstate conventions. It is called Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amendments.” I have posted it on the website of the Social Science Research Network where you can read and download it if you are so inclined.

Share this:

With the City of Detroit heading toward bankruptcy, The Hillreports that Mayor Dave Bing has signed a $330,000 contract with a Washington lobbying firm to help the city grab more money from federal taxpayers. At the same time, Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) wants up to a $1 billion in “emergency aid” (i.e., bailout) for Detroit from Uncle Sam.

I typed “federal funds Detroit” in a Google search and the following headlines popped up on the first page:

As I clicked through the search pages a pattern emerged: most of the articles are either about Detroit receiving federal funds or Detroit mismanaging federal funds. And Mayor Bing and Rep. Clarke think the rest of the country should give Detroit more money?